Pay up or leave

[benny]

absorb

Priests were not sponges.

[Craig1]

Priests were not sponges.

priests were pedaphiles

[benny]

priests were pedaphiles

pedophiles

[g_bambino]

Good grief! Do you even know that all legislation passed in Canada still requires 'Royal Assent' ?

Yeah, I do. Now, answer my question.

[benny]

Yeah, I do. Now, answer my question.

Don't wait after anyone!

[g_bambino]

A Constitution? Duh.....

"A" constitution? That doesn't answer my question in the least. I asked you to tell me what document the Charter of Rights is a part of. Please do so.

[Machjo]

My sig below should say something of the attitude toward Aboriginal on the part of many Canadians. 1966 isn't that long ago. If that girl was 5 in 1966, you can imagine that many of her classmates are still alive today.

[tango]

QUOTE (DogOnPorch @ Aug 15 2009, 10:16 PM) *

Good post and I'm in agreement. The variola epidemic in North America was truely horrible and quite natural no matter the fairy tales passed around about 'smallpox infested blankets'. Native Indians caught variola the same way everyone else did...face-to-face contact.

Thanks.

At least there's one non-inane post after mine.

Craig's got the thread wandering around like his mind. He's loopy, but we'll give him enough rope ...

-------------------

Re smallpox (etc) infected blankets ...

It's amazing to me how people are so quick to deny even the possibility of this.

Why is it so threatening to people alive now what might have been done centuries ago?

Why do I get the uneasy feeling that they 'doth' protest too much, too vehemently, too quickly, and with little thought or evidence?

According to the history we're taught, the first(?) Europeans found their way to America around 1500 (1492, 1534). The first settlers did not arrive until around 1600 (1607, 1608).

So what happened during that 100 year conquest of North America that occurred toward the end of the 'Dark Ages' of Europe, more politely termed the 'Middle Ages', under the authority of the Pope's "Doctrines of Discovery"?

http://ili.nativeweb.org/sdrm_art.html

In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories.

Under various theological and legal doctrines formulated during and after the Crusades, non-Christians were considered enemies of the Catholic faith and, as such, less than human. Accordingly, in the bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas directed King Alfonso to "capture, vanquish, and subdue the saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ," to "put them into perpetual slavery," and "to take all their possessions and property." [Davenport: 20-26]

...

Thus, when Columbus sailed west across the Sea of Darkness in 1492 - with the express understanding that he was authorized to "take possession" of any lands he "discovered" that were "not under the dominion of any Christian rulers" - he and the Spanish sovereigns of Aragon and Castile were following an already well-established tradition of "discovery" and conquest. ... - the right to conquer the lands which Columbus had already found, as well as any lands which Spain might "discover" in the future.

It was not exactly a pleasure jaunt to make new friends in new places: It was war against the Indigenous Peoples of America, to vanquish them and take their land, to enrich the powers in Europe and to clear the land of "enemies": 'Overpopulated' Europe needed places to dump the independent peasants who had lived off the common land that was now 'enclosed' ... privatized ... by the powerful, who wanted to keep only subdued serfs to do their labour.

For a hundred years, the conquest of America was conducted by:

- Explorers and traders/courier de bois, working on behalf of merchants and monarchs to find trade and valuable resources ... for themselves and their masters - ie, to exploit the wealth of the land and its people.

- Jesuits and other missionaries ostensibly spreading civilization and Christian (or capitalist?) values.

- Merchant marine/privateers/militiamen ... for protection ... or aggression? (It was war.)

And by the end of that hundred years, it's estimated that 95% of the Indigenous people of America were exterminated.

Is it so difficult to believe ... that during this hundred years of war, it might occur to someone that delivering infected blankets from the plague-ridden, overpopulated cities of displaced peasants of Europe to the susceptible Indigenous people of America might speed their conquest?

There certainly was no 'international law' against that tactic.

It's not like it was a 'war crime'.

Is it so difficult to believe ... that Indigenous oral history in Canada includes the arrival of shiploads of blankets from Europe that were then delivered in wagonloads and boatloads to accessible communities, by 'missionaries' and (private) militiamen?

Under those circumstances, and Indigenous Peoples being more likely to defend themselves than to submit willingly to slavery, I personally find it difficult to believe that it didn't happen, during the 100 years of the conquest of America and the 'vanquishing' of its peoples.

I've come across two accounts of this oral history online (links now lost), and asked the question of an Elder, who replied only briefly with a nod.

95% extermination over a hundred years of war with minimal 'armies' of private militiamen, without some form of mass genocide?

Not very likely, imo.

[Guest American Woman]

Craig's got the thread wandering around like his mind. He's loopy, but we'll give him enough rope ...

-------------------

Re smallpox (etc) infected blankets ...

It's amazing to me how people are so quick to deny even the possibility of this.

Why is it so threatening to people alive now what might have been done centuries ago?

Why do I get the uneasy feeling that they 'doth' protest too much, too vehemently, too quickly, and with little thought or evidence?

There is waaay too much crap in this thread to wade through looking for pertinent discussion, so if this has already been posted, I apologize. But regarding the smallpox/infected blankets we hear about:

I'm pretty sure it's been proven that the Indians did get small pox face-to-face as from what I recall, infected blankets wouldn't spread the disease the way it's been claimed. However, that doesn't mean the idea wasn't at the very least discussed, which is likely why these 'stories' have started. This is a very good link to documented information on the topic.

Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63).

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.

According to this site, We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result, so it's not a site sensationalizing anything, but they do use actual sources, which makes their information credible.

[jbg]

Craig's got the thread wandering around like his mind. He's loopy, but we'll give him enough rope ...

-------------------

Re smallpox (etc) infected blankets ...

It's amazing to me how people are so quick to deny even the possibility of this.

Why is it so threatening to people alive now what might have been done centuries ago?

Why do I get the uneasy feeling that they 'doth' protest too much, too vehemently, too quickly, and with little thought or evidence?

*********************

It was not exactly a pleasure jaunt to make new friends in new places: It was war against the Indigenous Peoples of America, to vanquish them and take their land, to enrich the powers in Europe and to clear the land of "enemies": 'Overpopulated' Europe needed places to dump the independent peasants who had lived off the common land that was now 'enclosed' ... privatized ... by the powerful, who wanted to keep only subdued serfs to do their labour.

***************

95% extermination over a hundred years of war with minimal 'armies' of private militiamen, without some form of mass genocide?

Not very likely, imo.

Your post internally makes no sense. Why would you try to kill your serfs through epidemic?

There is waaay too much crap in this thread to wade through looking for pertinent discussion, so if this has already been posted, I apologize. But regarding the smallpox/infected blankets we hear about:

Thank you and Tango both for returning to topic.

I'm pretty sure it's been proven that the Indians did get small pox face-to-face as from what I recall, infected blankets wouldn't spread the disease the way it's been claimed. However, that doesn't mean the idea wasn't at the very least discussed, which is likely why these 'stories' have started.

If the blanket stories are true I doubt that is the primary way that the smallpox epidemic started.

I think De Soto's pigs did most of the job quite well.

[benny]

For his hate of Indigenous nations and other reasons, there is a movement in Montreal to have Amherst Street name changed.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/replac...omagaia-st.html

Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:

... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]

Edited August 16, 2009 by benny

[charter.rights]

It is a known historical FACT that the purpose of the Mitchell map was to support BRITISH teritorial claims against FRENCH ones. As for the Eoyal Proclamation, it mentions many things, but it does not mention the Six Nations. It does not mention which First Nations enjoys the rights. On the basis of the way things were at the time of the Proclamation, cliams by other First Nations, such as the Mississaugas to name one, are as much if not more weight that your flight of fancy. From their, the rest of your drivel can be safely ignored.

It's exactly because I read it that I know that you do not know what you are talking about.. To quote the Royal Proclamation:

Just to set you straight....The Mississauga were the 8th member of the Confederacy, and had been for at least 100 years when the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made. So your inference that the Mississauga had any other competing claims is just an another of your ignorant myths.

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.

Again you haven't a clue.....

This particular passage of the RP1763 refers exactly to those lands within the jurisdiction of the Governors, which have not been surrendered (but have been occupied by colonists..i.e. southern Ontario) are to remain - reserved - as their "hunting grounds". This was included in the proclamation in recognition of the Nafan Treaty 1701, in which Six Nations gave up parts of Ohio and the Michigan peninsula in exchange for protection from the American colonists who kept encroaching on Six Nations territory. However, the Mitchell Map 1757, while identifying lands to be included in the Royal Proclamation 1763, clearly identifies all lands described previously as the "Limit of Six Nations Territory" - a clear representation that the land in southern Ontario was not "...purchased by us...". Those "...several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom we are connected..." refers to Six Nations, whom at the time of the RP1763 actually had included at least eight nations in their confederacy.

"And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid."

This passage reserves all those lands outside of the colonies as "Indian Lands" which are protected under the "...Sovereignty, Protection and Dominion...". This does not declare that Indians are subjects of the Crown, but that the Crown will use every means - legal, armed and legislative authority - to prevent expansion of the Colonies into these lands. You must also read:

"And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And. We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements."

And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests. and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians:

"...therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do. with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require. that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies...."

Could not be clearer.

I agree. But you have to do more than an amateur interpretation to understand it. No British document created in the history of Canada, stands alone. All of the actions of the British in that era were based on the Silver Covenant Chain which maintained peace between "several nations or Tribes of Indians", and the expanding British interests in North America. One must read and understand all the documents (and oral histories) to understand the legal relationship that developed between Six Nations and the Crown. You aren't there yet and so your opinion and knowledge is greatly lacking.

Imagine that... the Parliament of the COUNTRY needs the consent of the Head of State of the COUNTRY for laws to be enacted. Yes, the Head of State of Canada, as per the decision of the government of this COUNTRY to sign the Westminster Statute in 1931.

Most "heads of state" in democracies around the world are elected in one form or another. They are not appointed with the consent of a hereditary sovereign, nor are the laws of one country subject to the approval of another. As Queen of Canada, HRM Elizabeth II is in full control of the parliamentary system, courts and army, and as such could just as well serve the interests of Great Britain over the best interests of Canada. As well, the heads of state in other democracies are subject to the will of the electorate and their constitutions can be amended without their head of state's consent, through democratic process.

Do yourself a favour, and learn to read.

Right! More ad hominem. That seems to be the only thing you are relying on lately. Carry on chum. You make yourself look foolish.

Edited August 16, 2009 by charter.rights

[Smallc]

As Queen of Canada, HRM Elizabeth II is in full control of the parliamentary system, courts and army, and as such could just as well serve the interests of Great Britain over the best interests of Canada.

No she couldn't because her position as Queen of Canada is completely separate. She cannot act in the Name of the Unite Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when she is performing her role as Head of State and Administrator of Canada or vice versa. I have a feeling that you don't understand nearly as much about the Constitution as you think that you do.

[Smallc]

Most "heads of state" in democracies around the world are elected in one form or another. They are not appointed with the consent of a hereditary sovereign, nor are the laws of one country subject to the approval of another.

There are 44 Monarchies. That's a large portion of countries. A large number of developed countries (some of them most developed actually) are also monarchies. That includes us.

[Smallc]

See, it's even nicely laid out on Wikipedia

No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation insofar as the same is part of the law of the Dominion.

That comes from the Statutes of Westminster of 1931. You should read them sometime.

[benny]

There are 44 Monarchies. That's a large portion of countries. A large number of developed countries (some of them most developed actually) are also monarchies. That includes us.

One doesn't ask a Monarch to pay or to leave, if anything, it's the contrary that is true.

[charter.rights]

No she couldn't because her position as Queen of Canada is completely separate. She cannot act in the Name of the Unite Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when she is performing her role as Head of State and Administrator of Canada or vice versa. I have a feeling that you don't understand nearly as much about the Constitution as you think that you do.

Do you think for a minute that Paul Martin did not have a mind to his ship line benefits when he was Prime Minister? Do you not think that Brian Mulroney had a mind of profiting after he retired, from the deal he made with Schriber?

One can be the head of something and still looking out for the interests of their other connections. If the Monarchy was truly unbiased, how is it that they retained control of the Canadian Parliament? They could have easily prescribed another elected, or appointed head of state within Canada.

No the Monarchy has and remains concerned with their own interests.....

[charter.rights]

There are 44 Monarchies. That's a large portion of countries. A large number of developed countries (some of them most developed actually) are also monarchies. That includes us.

Most of those monarchies are not "heads of state". They are mostly leftover from the era when Kings and Queens ruled by wealth and force, and most were deposed under force, but were able to retain their titles and wealth. It would have been as easy for the Kennedys to declare themselves Kings and Queens, if not for a US Constitution standing in the way. I mean they started out as boot-leggers and built an empire on the back of crime.

[Charles Anthony]

This thread was temporarily suspended. It is now open again.

Some posts were deleted because they were either:

1) inappropriate due to forum violations

2) quoted inappropriate posts

3) replied or otherwise engaged inappropriate posts.

4) some of the above

Ch. A.

[Smallc]

Most of those monarchies are not "heads of state".

Yes, all 44 of them have a monarch as head of state.

[Pliny]

Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:

... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]...

I think this was made up. The germ theory of disease wasn't a commonly accepted western medical concept until Pasteur in the latter half of the 19th century. I don't know how they could have known which blankets were infected and which weren't.

Leewoenhoek first observed bacteria in 1674. Western medicine tied them to disease in 1864 and not without much controversy some of which prevails today.

Plainly and simply, exposure of the North American aboriginals to smallpox in any manner would have been devastating to them. Any mingling or socialization with Europeans would have started an epidemic.

Let's re-write that last paragraph like this

"Captain Simeon Ecuyer bought time by sending blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the Fort. " I wonder how many inside the Fort died of smallpox?

Millions of people in Europe died of smallpox too, after all.

Adding that smallpox was purposely spread is simply being inciteful and is a lie. Handlers of infected materials took no precautions because there were none and so risked getting the disease themselves. I doubt they would knowingly have passed out contaminated blankets and handkerchiefs.

It takes a twenty first century news fed mind to drink that "germ warfare" Kool-aid.

[jbg]

Again you haven't a clue.....Most "heads of state" in democracies around the world are elected in one form or another. They are not appointed with the consent of a hereditary sovereign, nor are the laws of one country subject to the approval of another. As Queen of Canada, HRM Elizabeth II is in full control of the parliamentary system, courts and army, and as such could just as well serve the interests of Great Britain over the best interests of Canada. As well, the heads of state in other democracies are subject to the will of the electorate and their constitutions can be amended without their head of state's consent, through democratic process.

And if HM tried to impose her will she'd be laughed at, not obeyed. That would hold true in the U.K. and in the Dominions.

[jbg]

I think this was made up. The germ theory of disease wasn't a commonly accepted western medical concept until Pasteur in the latter half of the 19th century. I don't know how they could have known which blankets were infected and which weren't. ***********

Adding that smallpox was purposely spread is simply being inciteful and is a lie. Handlers of infected materials took no precautions because there were none and so risked getting the disease themselves. I doubt they would knowingly have passed out contaminated blankets and handkerchiefs.

It takes a twenty first century news fed mind to drink that "germ warfare" Kool-aid.

Very good point.

I kick myself that I didn't think of it.

[whowhere]

Most of those monarchies are not "heads of state". They are mostly leftover from the era when Kings and Queens ruled by wealth and force, and most were deposed under force, but were able to retain their titles and wealth. It would have been as easy for the Kennedys to declare themselves Kings and Queens, if not for a US Constitution standing in the way. I mean they started out as boot-leggers and built an empire on the back of crime.

With this response I know you to be ignorant and know eff all about anything. The US exists because of the King Louis IV of France. The United States with Frances support fought four years against Canada? Why? For the fun of it? This support by King Louis IV bankrupted France, which King Louis XV tried to pass on the costs of this war onto the people. This led to revolt and the Rise of Napoleon. Napoleon Bitch slapped Europe and crushed the Monarchies of Europe. Napoleon was ultimately done in by his own ego. He marched in on Russia with the largest army ever amassed and was defeated by the weather, not because Russia was able to defend itself but because of the weather. Napoleon dominated Europe for forty Years.

The fact is, the rise of the United States and the combination of Napoleon Broke the monarchies of Europe.

The kennedy's in the sixties to declare themselves as king and Queens. That is the most retard effing statement anyone on a political forum can ever make. The United States is what it is because of the Likes of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, etc had integrity and had thought in just way that would emulate Freedom and wealth creation while at the same time enshrining tools to protect that freedom in what is know as the Constitution of the United States. (Which Canada does not have)

People have swear to defend the Constitution and the president also has defend the constitution from Foreign and domestic enemies. Now to change or amend the constitution? Good luck! That is why is the United States is what it is, because of the Founding Fathers.

If what you are saying about the kennedy's was actually the case, and they were trying to make themselves king and Queen of the United States it would be no mystery why he got shot.

As for the "acien Regime of Europe" It was a christian kingdom centralized around the Vatican in Rome. This Christian Kingdom went on the Rise about 300 AD and began to splinter with Germany breaking away from the Vatican. Great Britain also broke away from the Vatican and the church of England was established. Christian Kings were beleived to be ruling by devine right and extension of God on Earth.

With that you Can Understand with the Rise of the United States, the Execution of King Louis XIV or XV??, the Break away of Britain from the Vatican, and the rise of Napoleon was the end (if there ever was) an extension of God Ruling on Earth.

As for this thread, the aboriginals have no pyramids, they have no hierglyphs, everything they are is heresay. They have nothing but manufactured rants. As I have said in prior posts the aboriginals should be greatful they are alive because there are lots of passages in the old testament that states to wipe out every man, women, child, and animal. If the British or the French did this, which the United States did or they pushed them onto reserves. Maybe the aboroginals should look to see what they are getting in the United States and then fight for equal treatment. I suspect Canada's aboriginals are getting a sweeter deal.

Horrified by the previous paragraph? Well Welcome to 2000 years of Judeo - Chritian history and doctrine. But I have also said that this alphabet is of Rome and any arangment of these letters is still of Rome. The Romans God was Jupiter, not the God of Jacob, Abraham or Jesus.

What did the Romans do? The crucified Jesus and they burned downed the Jewish temple in Jeruselum in 70 AD. What do you make of that? The Romans obviously did not think much of the so called Jews or the Christians.

European thought goes deep. Septugint was transcribed by the Jews for the Greeks in 300 BC which is the basis of the Catholic and Orthodox Christians and perhaps the orthadox jews?? The King James is based on the Masoretic Text assembled between 700 ad to 1000 AD. Unfortunatly there is no reliable translation of the septuagint. King James the Uniting king of Scotland, England, Ireland, and wales into Great Britain had about 50 scholars work along with Masoretic Jews to establish the Old Testament of the King James. I doubt there has ever been a reliable scholastic translation done of the septuagint to English.

Myself I would be interested to compare the two translations to see how close they are.

As for the European thought having to listen to the Aboriginal thought does not add up. The whining would not have garnered any sympathy in past nor shoud it garner any now. If you have land claims bring them before the ICJ and stop wasting your time with Canada's corrupt governance.

[charter.rights]

With this response I know you to be ignorant and know eff all about anything. The US exists because of the King Louis IV of France. The United States with Frances support fought four years against Canada? Why? For the fun of it? This support by King Louis IV bankrupted France, which King Louis XV tried to pass on the costs of this war onto the people. This led to revolt and the Rise of Napoleon. Napoleon Bitch slapped Europe and crushed the Monarchies of Europe. Napoleon was ultimately done in by his own ego. He marched in on Russia with the largest army ever amassed and was defeated by the weather, not because Russia was able to defend itself but because of the weather. Napoleon dominated Europe for forty Years.

The fact is, the rise of the United States and the combination of Napoleon Broke the monarchies of Europe.

The kennedy's in the sixties to declare themselves as king and Queens. That is the most retard effing statement anyone on a political forum can ever make. The United States is what it is because of the Likes of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, etc had integrity and had thought in just way that would emulate Freedom and wealth creation while at the same time enshrining tools to protect that freedom in what is know as the Constitution of the United States. (Which Canada does not have)

People have swear to defend the Constitution and the president also has defend the constitution from Foreign and domestic enemies. Now to change or amend the constitution? Good luck! That is why is the United States is what it is, because of the Founding Fathers.

If what you are saying about the kennedy's was actually the case, and they were trying to make themselves king and Queen of the United States it would be no mystery why he got shot.

As for the "acien Regime of Europe" It was a christian kingdom centralized around the Vatican in Rome. This Christian Kingdom went on the Rise about 300 AD and began to splinter with Germany breaking away from the Vatican. Great Britain also broke away from the Vatican and the church of England was established. Christian Kings were beleived to be ruling by devine right and extension of God on Earth.

With that you Can Understand with the Rise of the United States, the Execution of King Louis XIV or XV??, the Break away of Britain from the Vatican, and the rise of Napoleon was the end (if there ever was) an extension of God Ruling on Earth.

As for this thread, the aboriginals have no pyramids, they have no hierglyphs, everything they are is heresay. They have nothing but manufactured rants. As I have said in prior posts the aboriginals should be greatful they are alive because there are lots of passages in the old testament that states to wipe out every man, women, child, and animal. If the British or the French did this, which the United States did or they pushed them onto reserves. Maybe the aboroginals should look to see what they are getting in the United States and then fight for equal treatment. I suspect Canada's aboriginals are getting a sweeter deal.

Horrified by the previous paragraph? Well Welcome to 2000 years of Judeo - Chritian history and doctrine. But I have also said that this alphabet is of Rome and any arangment of these letters is still of Rome. The Romans God was Jupiter, not the God of Jacob, Abraham or Jesus.

What did the Romans do? The crucified Jesus and they burned downed the Jewish temple in Jeruselum in 70 AD. What do you make of that? The Romans obviously did not think much of the so called Jews or the Christians.

European thought goes deep. Septugint was transcribed by the Jews for the Greeks in 300 BC which is the basis of the Catholic and Orthodox Christians and perhaps the orthadox jews?? The King James is based on the Masoretic Text assembled between 700 ad to 1000 AD. Unfortunatly there is no reliable translation of the septuagint. King James the Uniting king of Scotland, England, Ireland, and wales into Great Britain had about 50 scholars work along with Masoretic Jews to establish the Old Testament of the King James. I doubt there has ever been a reliable scholastic translation done of the septuagint to English.

Myself I would be interested to compare the two translations to see how close they are.

As for the European thought having to listen to the Aboriginal thought does not add up. The whining would not have garnered any sympathy in past nor shoud it garner any now. If you have land claims bring them before the ICJ and stop wasting your time with Canada's corrupt governance.

I shortened it a bit....

And with one sentence you project your full inadequacies.

Edited August 17, 2009 by charter.rights